On 19/03/2019 08:28:40+0000, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Ok. I can apply this clk-fixes. I presume that things are real bad and it can't wait until v5.2?
To be perfectly clear, it's not a regression. But as we're at the very beginning of the '-rc' phase and as it's a bug, I was thinking about adding it now. But you to choose, no problem either way.
@@ -60,10 +68,18 @@ static int clk_programmable_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, continue; parent_rate = clk_hw_get_rate(parent);
for (shift = 0; shift < PROG_PRES_MASK; shift++) {tmp_rate = parent_rate >> shift;if (tmp_rate <= req->rate)break;
if (layout->is_pres_direct) {for (shift = 0; shift <= layout->pres_mask; shift++) {tmp_rate = parent_rate / (shift + 1);if (tmp_rate <= req->rate)break;}} else {for (shift = 0; shift < layout->pres_mask; shift++) {tmp_rate = parent_rate >> shift;if (tmp_rate <= req->rate)break;}This looks like a lot of copy paste when the if statement could have been pulled into the for loop instead of duplicating the loops and surrounding if condition check for tmp_rate.
Stop condition of loops not being the same made me separate them instead of adding artificial test conditions for shift == layout->pres_mask. I'm not sure the other way around is more obvious then...
I also tried different ways (e.g. setting up a different determine_rate for the sama5d2) but this ended up being the more concise one.